When a game goes from prototype to greenlit, what happens to the early assets?
interpolator
Hypothetical scenario (may or may not reflect any current situation).
Imagine someone or a small group of people have built a game in private for 12 months. It's a real proof of concept that has fully rendered environments, interesting and uniquely fleshed out characters made for 3D, and a complicated story that brings cohesion to the world and gameplay.
It's not the final game, but there's a lot of art made for it might as well be.
Now imagine this is where a Publisher comes in. They like the prototype or have enough faith in it, that they're willing to turn it into a real game.
From a publisher's point of view, do they consider it more efficient to pay for the new game to have completely remade assets from the ground up, or do they pay the developers to continue where they left off and the assets remain the same unless the developers make voluntary changes to it?
I'm aware some games have very crude origins that it's only reasonable for the Publisher to pay for a complete visual overhaul (i.e see this Bayonetta video). But what about assets that are more moderately fleshed out and are useable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRUJqrBVIM
Imagine someone or a small group of people have built a game in private for 12 months. It's a real proof of concept that has fully rendered environments, interesting and uniquely fleshed out characters made for 3D, and a complicated story that brings cohesion to the world and gameplay.
It's not the final game, but there's a lot of art made for it might as well be.
Now imagine this is where a Publisher comes in. They like the prototype or have enough faith in it, that they're willing to turn it into a real game.
From a publisher's point of view, do they consider it more efficient to pay for the new game to have completely remade assets from the ground up, or do they pay the developers to continue where they left off and the assets remain the same unless the developers make voluntary changes to it?
I'm aware some games have very crude origins that it's only reasonable for the Publisher to pay for a complete visual overhaul (i.e see this Bayonetta video). But what about assets that are more moderately fleshed out and are useable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRUJqrBVIM
Replies
On an Indie game: much more likely that the developer is planning to keep the assets, and simply make more of them in order to finish the game.
In general, once the team knows how they want to make the assets for game, they try to stop throwing them away. Anything made while the team was 'figuring things out' can probably go away.
to demonstrate intent for graphics, you do a self contained demonstration of intended visual style that essentially amounts to concept art even if it's a playable scene you can walk around. its a style guide you then give to the artists when that time comes.
point though is you wouldn't grind hard on those assets for a proof of concept.
A larger studio will keep all their assets from previous work around, so often they will prototype a future game using the last game's assets.
especially if your game isn't some genre-redefining project where everyone can see the fresh new gameplay potential from miles away. what do you do if it's pseudo-cinematic egoshooter 5000?